[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la lojbab cusku di'e
>Yes, but hopefully with the collective meaning = "there are >sailors scattered over the deck" and not with the substance >meaning "there is sailor goo scattered over the deck". That is a question of "relevant properties". If the sailor goo scattered on the deck has the relevant properties of sailordom for the context, then all is fine.
They could hardly have the properties of {blosazri}, how could
goo operate a boat? So at least veridical {loi blosazri} would
not be appropriate in the case of goo.
If you boil rice to a pulp and spread rice goo all over the floor (or grind it down to rice flour) then you risk the same problem with substance-rice that you do with substance-sailor.
Correct. If it ceases to be rice, we shouldn't call it {rismi}
anymore.
>If you divide {pa rismi} in many parts, you normally end up
>with {so'i rismi} (assuming you started with a big enough
>{pa rismi}. But if you divide {pa nanmu} in many parts,
>you don't end up with {so'i nanmu}, no matter how big the
>pa nanmu was.
This is just arguing about how small you can divide the mass before it
loses its relevant emergent properties and thereby ceases to be a mass.
I didn't talk of loi/lei in that paragraph. I was talking of
{pa rismi} and divisions of {pa rismi}.
> In that sense, there can be said to be a >class of brodas such that when you divide pa broda you end >up with so'i broda, and other brodas for which you don't. John (and I) are arguing, I think, that this subdivision of brodas is a SW restriction that is not necessary.
Is the divison of brodas into "animals" and "non-animals" also a SW restriction? It is the same type of subdivision, purely dependent on the meanings of the predicates and no doubt with boundary non-clearcut cases.
>But that's like saying that there is a class of brodas >such that when you melt lo broda you still have broda and >other brodas for which you don't. If such classes of broda exist, then membership of a particular broda in a class is something that can/must be asserted, and not necessarily assumed. Lojban supports Salvador Dali, and his flowing watches.
We agree then. We don't want a special gadri for flowing broda, and we don't need a special gadri for substance broda. If we want to talk about flowing watches or watch substance we use selbri, not gadri. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail